Solidary obligation

Nature: Petition on review on certiorari

[rescission of the contract of sale of the subject parcel of land ]

AFP Retirement and Separation Benefit System (AFPRSBS) vs Eduardo Sanctivres

Gr. No. 207586
August 17, 2017
Ponente: Mendoza , J
Second Division

Facts :

PEPI, formerly Antipolo Properties, Inc., offered to Eduardo Sanvictores (Sanvictores) for
sale on installment basis a parcel of land in Village East Executive Homes, a subdivision project,
designated as Lot 5, Block 64, Phase II, covering an area of approximately 204 square meters, and
situated in Tayuman, Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal; that on April 20, 1994, Sanvictores paid the required
down payment of P81,949.04; that on June 9, 1994, a Contract to Sell was executed by and between
PEPI and AFPRSBS, as the seller, and Sanvictores, as the buyer; that on February 27, 1999,

Sanvictores paid in full the purchase price of the subject property in the amount of P
534,378.79; that despite the full payment, PEPI and AFPRSBS failed to execute the corresponding
deed of absolute sale on the subject property and deliver the corresponding title thereto; that on
September 6, 2000, Sanvictores demanded from PEPI the execution of the deed of sale and the
delivery of the transfer certificate of title; that PEPI claimed that the title of the subject property was
still with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and could not be released due to the economic crisis;
that despite several follow-ups with PEPI, the latter did not communicate with Sanvictores for a
period of four (4) years; and that, thereafter, Sanvictores filed a complaint for rescission of the
contract to sell, refund of payment, damages, and attorney's fees against PEPI and AFPRSBS before
the HLRUB.

In its defense, PEPI argued, among others, that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of
cause of action; that it could not be faulted for the delay in the delivery of the title due to force
majeure; that it substantially complied with its obligations in good faith; and that it was always
transparent in dealing with the public. For its part, AFPRSBS countered that it was not the owner
and developer of Village East Executive Homes but PEPI; that PEPI alone was the seller; and that
Norma Espina (Espina) was neither the treasurer nor the authorized representative of AFPRSBS, but
the Treasurer of PEP

Issue: Whether or not AFPRSBS is jointly and severally liable with PEPI ?

Ruling:
Yes, Here, there is no doubt that the nature of the obligation of PEPI and AFPRSBS under the
subject contract to sell was solidary. In the said contract, PEPI and AFPRSBS were expressly referred
to as the "SELLER" while Sanvictores was referred to as the "BUYER." Indeed, the contract to sell
did not state "SELLERS" but "SELLER." This could only mean that PEPI and AFPRSBS were
considered as one seller in the contract. As correctly pointed out by the administrative tribunals below
and the CA, there was no delineation as to their rights and obligations.xxx

In this case, HLURB, the OP and the CA were one in ruling that AFPRSBS was jointly and
severally liable with PEPI to Sanvictores. The Court reviewed the records and found their factual
findings and conclusions to be in accordance with the evidentiary records. In Spouses Berot v. Siapno,
xxx The Court defined solidary obligation as one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire
obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation
from any or all of the debtors. On the other hand, a joint obligation is one in which each debtor is
liable only for a proportionate part of the debt, and the creditor is entitled to demand only a
proportionate part of the credit from each debtor.

The well-entrenched rule is that solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly. They must be
positively and clearly expressed. A liability is solidary "only when the obligation expressly so states,
when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires." In this regard, Article
1207 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1 2 0 7 . The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or
more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to
demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There
is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of
the obligation requires solidarity. As can be gleaned therefrom, Article 1207 does not presume
solidary liability unless: 1] the obligation expressly so states; or the law or nature requires solidarity.